MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362506245

[Vaccination coverage, beliefs, and attitudes in transplanted children and adolescents: a mixed-methods systematic review.]

2023· review· en· W4362506245 on OpenAlexaff
María Teresa Herrero-Diez, Ferrán Catalá-López

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeaslesVaccinationRubellaTransplantationMEDLINEPsychological interventionHepatitis BHematopoietic stem cell transplantationFamily medicineImmunologyPediatricsInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Vaccine-preventable infectious diseases are a cause of morbidity and mortality in transplanted children. The main objective of this study was to synthesize the available evidence of vaccination coverage in children and adolescents who are candidates or transplant recipients and to analyze beliefs, attitudes, and experiences about vaccination. METHODS: A mixed-methods systematic review was performed (Open Science Framework registration: https://osf.io/auqn3/). Searches were conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, IBECS and LILACS (from January 2000 to August 2021) and in gray literature. Quantitative and qualitative studies reported information on coverage, beliefs, attitudes and/or experiences about recommended vaccines in children who are candidates or recipients of solid organ or hematopoietic progenitor transplantation. Quality assessment was undertaken using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). A narrative synthesis of the studies was carried out. RESULTS: A total of thirty-two studies in thirty-five publications were included. The most studied interventions were vaccines against measles (n=21; 66%) and hepatitis B (n=20; 62%). Vaccination rates showed a high variability for the most represented vaccines (specifically, 2%-100% for measles, 0.4%-100% for hepatitis B, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and rubella), with coverages lower than 90% in at least 70% of the studies. The lowest rates were reported in post-transplantation and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Only one qualitative study was identified reporting information on beliefs and/or attitudes, although nine quantitative studies explored cognitive aspects. CONCLUSIONS: This review shows a high variability in vaccination coverage in children and adolescents who are transplant candidates or recipients, with rates lower than those recommended. Further studies would be needed to identify beliefs and attitudes about immunization in this context.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.010
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207